These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Inferno 1.1 Sisi features

First post First post First post
Author
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#261 - 2012-06-12 17:04:05 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Lallante wrote:


I agree quality > quantity (although its impossible for a mechanic to judge this) - Out of interest, why do you support a mechanic that escalates the cost of bringing in allies with the quantity of ally entities then? Is it just to troll jade (a noble endeavour).


Quantity has a quality all of its own. Especially for small scale wars--100 v 200 or 200 v 100, if you bring in a large merc corp of 200 guys you'll likely swamp the aggressor even if they aren't good. There needs to be a limiter on allies, if not a hard number than an effective ISK wall works just as well.

Ideally, the wardec system will be relatively simple and not bogged down with escalation rules, number count rules, weekly comparisons, derivatives of the membercounts, etc. You want Risk, not the board game of Game of Thrones.


I guess this just comes down to whether you think the "relatively simple" mechanic is better as number of corp/alliances or number of players.

I think the latter is, though a bad indicater of power, a huge amount better than the former.

PS: I'm not trying to make highsec safer or wars less common or more consensual, I want more glorious deaths not less.
Dovinian
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#262 - 2012-06-12 17:04:06 UTC
Hi Elise, what changes would you make to the current system to make it viable and awesome? EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath

Please use bulleted points


  • here is an example
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#263 - 2012-06-12 17:07:32 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
snipped general ranting


So now you've got all that off your chest would you like to address the specifics of my proposal?

Quote:

Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.

1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.

2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.

3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).

4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.

I think that solves the problem.

Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.

Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.

This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.

Can you see anything wrong with this solution?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#264 - 2012-06-12 17:09:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?

Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?
Fuujin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#265 - 2012-06-12 17:12:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Fuujin
Lallante wrote:
Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?

Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?


Most people don't read the forums. All they can do in-game is solicit offers, look at their war histories, and make determinations that way. A trash "merc" corp can glom onto wars and have a kickass undefeated streak, while still being trash. A quality merc corp can fight hard and do stuff, and have the same record, but fewer members.

Who would you hire? The larger undefeated corp, or the smaller?

Limiting allies would eliminate the dogpile and record-inflation of no-effort gank corps, or at least reduce it.
Syndic Thrass
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#266 - 2012-06-12 17:12:59 UTC
Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.

Also stop with the tinfoil hat bullshit.

Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8

CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#267 - 2012-06-12 17:14:02 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Has those not involved in a war assisting those in combat via assist modules (remote repair, remote sensor boosting, etc) been addressed? As in not allowed?

We are going to be addressing that in the next phase of crimewatch work that Team Five-0 has planned. This is general aggression issue rather than a specific war issue (since wars are just another form of legalised aggression, much like loot-theft and kill-rights) and we want to fix the general problem of interfering in someone else's fight.

So yes, it is going to be sorted, but no, not in an Inferno point release (and so let's not derail this thread away from 1.1 feedback)

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#268 - 2012-06-12 17:15:21 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?

Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?

If the point is to achieve results, why does the ability to hire a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable) even need to exist? I mean, unless inflating GFs own kills, thus making our war more fun/profitable is your desired result. Ugh

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#269 - 2012-06-12 17:17:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Lallante wrote:
Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?

Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?


The arguement is (and I really don't think its a good one) is that mercenaries are being disadvantaged by the fact that random hisec trade hub raiders offer their services for FREE.

ie "good mercenaries" can't make any money from being defensive allies. Because everyone is choosing the free ones.

Also,

traditional merc contracts (where entity A pays entity B to wardec C for some purpose) are being ruined because entity C can call in free allies and make it difficult for entity B to complete its job.

The first stage of the argument is a bit bunkum because it assumes that any entity would be paying for "serious mercs" on receipt of a random trade hub griefing wardec and the answer is no.

The second stage is a little more convincing but isn't resolved by the Inferno 1.1 changes either. Nothing would stop GS (or anybody else huge) from allying for free with anybody wardecced by a merc in new eden in the new system. Instant blob same result.

So basically these changes do not boost mercs or the merc profession in any way. All they do is protect large alliances from the gameplay consequences of their actions,

There is a different solution needed.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#270 - 2012-06-12 17:19:27 UTC
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.


So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?


Quote:
Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.

1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.

2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.

3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).

4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.

I think that solves the problem.

Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.

Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.

This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.

Can you see anything wrong with this solution?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#271 - 2012-06-12 17:23:32 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?



I understand what you're trying to do, but please stop requoting yourself in every post. It's OK to turn the other cheek and ignore people once in a while.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#272 - 2012-06-12 17:23:49 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?

Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?

If the point is to achieve results, why does the ability to hire a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable) even need to exist? I mean, unless inflating GFs own kills, thus making our war more fun/profitable is your desired result. Ugh


Because it is funny.

Also it is fun for the ragtag guys (and hopefully for the attacker too - more defenders should mean more kills), while being a reasonably balanced method of defence (albeit not the most effective one, by far) against abusive wardecs. It encourages more PvP basically.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#273 - 2012-06-12 17:29:16 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:


So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?



I understand what you're trying to do, but please stop requoting yourself in every post. It's OK to turn the other cheek and ignore people once in a while.


Yeah fair enough, guess its okay if I link them instead :)

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Fuujin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#274 - 2012-06-12 17:29:18 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

The first stage of the argument is a bit bunkum because it assumes that an entity like SF or Honda Accord would be paying for mercs in any situation on receipt of those wardecs and the answer is no.


Found your problem; its your incessantly self-centered argument.

So you and issler won't hire mercs; fine. What about the research alliance that gets dec'd? Or the small industrial group? Will you ignore their needs to defend their towers/assets/members?

Take the focus off yourself and consider the typical situation. Allowing for unlimited free allies is a Bad Thing for merc competitiveness because it dilutes the War History as a determinant of quality.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#275 - 2012-06-12 17:31:08 UTC
If you're going to keep linking to it, can I keep linking to Soundwave's post that smacked it down? I mean, that's all that matters, really - getting anyone to affirm "yes this is a good idea" is just you seeking validation.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#276 - 2012-06-12 17:31:15 UTC
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.

Also stop with the tinfoil hat bullshit.

It has been done multiple times in this thread, but you as well as others just ignore them and focus on Jade's posts. Lallente has been making very good posts in regards to the war dec mechanic. Why don't you go toe-to-toe with him. I would very much like to see that.

Unless of course you are not ready for that.

/popcorn
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#277 - 2012-06-12 17:36:09 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Found your problem; its your incessantly self-centered argument.
So you and issler won't hire mercs; fine. What about the research alliance that gets dec'd? Or the small industrial group? Will you ignore their needs to defend their towers/assets/members?


If I was wardecced by an entity that wanted to blow up my towers I'd consider hiring mercs to help defend at the reinforcement timer. I wouldn't be adding freebie "mercs" through the ally system. There is a world of difference between getting defenders for a specific purpose and simply reacting to a generalized trade hub ganking dec. But that pretty much goes for anybody else. No small entity that gets randomly decced and never sees its attackers is going to hire "serious mercs" to defend them -

Quote:
Take the focus off yourself and consider the typical situation. Allowing for unlimited free allies is a Bad Thing for merc competitiveness because it dilutes the War History as a determinant of quality.


Come again? How does that work ?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#278 - 2012-06-12 17:38:42 UTC
corestwo wrote:
If you're going to keep linking to it, can I keep linking to Soundwave's post that smacked it down? I mean, that's all that matters, really - getting anyone to affirm "yes this is a good idea" is just you seeking validation.


Well its actually seeking a discussion on a solid proposal rather than random trolling and argument. Soundwave made a post, it had his opinion. I disagreed with his approach in many respects and answered in turn. It appears many other players disagreed with his post as well. Hopefully he'll come back and respond.

This is how a conversation works.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#279 - 2012-06-12 17:40:23 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?

A number of others have pointed out the silliness of this question. According to CCP's reasoning, the attacker must pay more for more targets. If only high sec targets count then large null sec alliances should cost less. Obviously the assumption is that equivalent numbers will do something else. Some possible other motives are: area protection (make high sec as hostile as null sec), unify towards an actual threat on null sec territory, or deterrence against large vs small wars. There are probably many more reasons to create numerically equal sides.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat.

Thank you for your entire response. At least now I understand why you are doing this and I even like the goal, although I disagree with the method. Thinking as a mercenary's customer these changes do not change the reasons why I would not hire a merc corporation. The war system needs a method by which a defender can actively remove the war declaration by fighting (and hiring mercenaries to do that fighting).

The free allies seem to be high sec ganking corps. These corporations provide one function, area harassment in trade hubs. Given significant numbers of opponents in non-industrial ships and they will dock. Now let us look at Noir.'s (a merc corp) list of services and compare that with these new allies and the solution suggested.

1) Declarations of War
2) System/Regional Assault (0.0 or anti-piracy)
3) Asset Denial
These three require focus which high sec gankers do not seem to have outside of the trade hubs.

4) Small/Medium POS Destruction
A free ally is looking for cheap targets not coordinated actions to benefit you.

5) Surveillance/Reconnaissance
6) Consulting
7) Scouting/Escort
These seem like generally non-war related items, and require communication, which a free ally is not likely to bother with.

8) OPFOR
Unless you fancy docking games an opposing force needs to be someone with some coordination.

9) Force Multiplication
Requires coordination, again not in the province of free mercs.

10) Corporate Expansion/Alliance Creation
Not wardec related.

From my perspective, the only three reasons to hire a merc outfit remain the same both before and after this change. 1) Harass someone you don't like. 2) POS destruction. 3) Training. Perhaps there are other cost effective tasks that mercenaries can do that I have not heard about. Based on this perspective what mercs need is a real way to benefit people not methods to hinder war dec defenders.

If you want to aid mercs add a method for defenders to actively fight against a war dec. Mercs can then be hired to reach this goal when the corporation does not feel it is capable. It seems like this idea has been dismissed by CCP because they think it constrains the activity in war. This is wrong.

A new option besides hide or fight a more powerful enemy could make the wars about fighting, which would encourage the hiring of mercs. The old wars were boring because you felt like there was nothing you could actually do to change the situation or encourage a fight. Allowing the defender to try and end the war through an activity will cause the inferno you actually wanted, instead of boredom that often results.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#280 - 2012-06-12 17:53:16 UTC
Can we flip the discussion around for a moment and ask why, given wardec costs, unlimited corps should be able to effectively wardec whoever they want for free by simply riding on someone else's coattails? I mean, that's what you're offering people, really. You're not saying "Oh woe is me, come defend me from the evil goonies", you're saying "Come wardec goons for free" and letting people avoid the system.

So can you please justify why CCP should consider this okay?

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo